On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 08:09, Bob Beck wrote: > I'd be a lot happier voicing an opinion in support of something like this > if I also saw diffs and interest in *using* them > to extend functionality later or replace some things easier to do with > scheme to make the code simpler - something kjell was alluding to.
I think we can work towards that, but there's a bit of chicken and egg problem here. I'm not inclined to do a lot of work if the answer in two months is going to be "oh, sorry, perl would have been cooler". The diff will only get larger from here. > A promise of "this is bigger and bloated now but will be really cool in the > future" isn't so good if the people putting it in > see getting scheme integration in as the goal - otherwise, congrats, you've Integration is one of the goals. I can't predict what extensions you may want to write. I mean, mg already reads a .mg file. If we knew what people were going to put in their .mg files, we could just hard code it in the program and cut out the startup file bloat. That said, some concrete examples would help, both to make sure we're building something useful and to demonstrate that it is useful. Why do people still use emacs and not mg? For text editing not usenet browsing or whatever. I don't want to add some python editor mode just to hear "I don't use python".
